Re: Translations from UK to US

Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> Ron Hunter <rphunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> : Thom-Madura wrote:
:> :> :> Ron Hunter wrote:
:> :> :>> Thom-Madura wrote:
:> :> :>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
:> :> :>>>> Thom-Madura wrote:
:> :> :>>>>> Barry Gray wrote:
:> :> :>>>>>> In message <1187678252.378495.94880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:> :> :>>>>>> Sirius Kase <SiriusKase@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :>>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 7:25 pm, Thom-Madura <thommad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :>>>>>>>> 4 - That JKR chose to make a version of her books for her
:> :> :>>>>>>>> largest and
:> :> :>>>>>>>> most profitable audience is not insulting. I would imagine that
:> :> :>>>>>>>> Brits
:> :> :>>>>>>>> would be insulted that she decided that he UK edition was
:> :> :>>>>>>>> inadequate for
:> :> :>>>>>>>> the US market.
:> :> :>>>>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>>>> Considering where most of the complaints are coming from, it is the
:> :> :>>>>>>> Brits who feel insulted that "their version" wasn't good enough.
:> :> :>>>>>>> Sour
:> :> :>>>>>>> grapes.
:> :> :>>>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>>> I do not read a lot of fiction by American authors, but it seems
:> :> :>>>>>> to me that whereas books by British authors are almost invariably
:> :> :>>>>>> also published in American editions, few books by American authors
:> :> :>>>>>> are published in British editions. Correct me, with examples, if I
:> :> :>>>>>> am wrong. (I am not of course talking about stories being retold.)
:> :> :>>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>>> Perhaps a good example of this is the National Geographic
:> :> :>>>>>> Magazine: the only difference between the British and U.S.
:> :> :>>>>>> editions is the advertisements, even in articles about Britain. I
:> :> :>>>>>> preferred it before there was a British edition.
:> :> :>>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>> I continue to believe that a single version of each book COULD have
:> :> :>>>>> been produced that would have been OK for both markets.
:> :> :>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>> It is rare that there are American And British versions of books
:> :> :>>>>> written in either place. The problem here - of course - was that
:> :> :>>>>> the British First book was published before the American Version
:> :> :>>>>> was edited - I do not believe that Bloomsbury ever thought the book
:> :> :>>>>> would be as successful as it became - so they did not edit it with
:> :> :>>>>> BOTH markets in mind. I continue to wonder why they did not do so
:> :> :>>>>> with the later books - which could have been produced with only
:> :> :>>>>> one word change really (Sorceror/Philosopher).
:> :> :>>>>>
:> :> :>>>>
:> :> :>>>> Which versions of the spelling differences would you choose? What
:> :> :>>>> about food items, not understandable to Americans without research?
:> :> :>>>> Personally, I have no problem with either the British spellings, or
:> :> :>>>> the unusual food names, but some children are doubtless not quite as
:> :> :>>>> well-read as I am.
:> :> :>>>
:> :> :>>> Actually - unless there was a problem with the WORD based on the
:> :> :>>> spelling - I probably would not have changed it from British to
:> :> :>>> Proper American English since American Children are really smart and
:> :> :>>> can figure out these things out of context - including the foods.
:> :> :>>>
:> :> :>>
:> :> :>> I doubt that one could figure out what kippers or spotted *** are
:> :> :>> from context.
:> :> :>>
:> :> :>>> What I was referring to was the really arcane words and phrases -
:> :> :>>> such as SKIP or "Keep your pecker up". There are words common to
:> :> :>>> BOTH languages that could have been used in place of SKIP or JUMPER
:> :> :>>> (Etc) - AND - "Keep your pecker up" could have been written "Keep
:> :> :>>> your chin up" - which both would have understood. (The "pecker"
:> :> :>>> problem was unique in that it means "penis" in the US and would not
:> :> :>>> have passed review as a children's book with that phrase in it
:> :> :>>> obviously - even if context clearly implied what was meant)
:> :> :>>>
:> :> :>>> The reason why most British books do not have to be changed for the
:> :> :>>> American Market is because the Dialect normally used by writers in
:> :> :>>> the UK - Received British English - is an elite form (Used in
:> :> :>>> Colleges and on News reports - etc) - and generally relies less on
:> :> :>>> idioms and arcane expressions. The same applies to the other way
:> :> :>>> around - Standard American English - the writers dialect in the US -
:> :> :>>> does the same thing.
:> :> :>>> It is when the writers stray from the elite language that creates
:> :> :>>> problems - especially when context does not make the word or phrase
:> :> :>>> clear.
:> :> :>>
:> :> :>> I would prefer 'formal' to 'elite'. Negative connotation to 'elite'
:> :> :>> these days.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I will use your term - although the Encyclopedia uses mine. My guess is
:> :> :> that they use the word elite because they are describing the language of
:> :> :> Higher Education (College- University) which at one time was elite -
:> :> :> although no as much so now.
:> :> :
:> :> : Like I said, bad connotations. Language changes, a lot, even in the
:> :> : span of one life. I won't bore you with the changes in spelling that
:> :> : have taken place in the US over the past 59 years since I began to read.
:> :>
:> :> I consider it a compliment to be among the elite...and can't think
:> :> of a change in spelling that recent that I would acknowledge as
:> :> legitimate!
:> :>
:> : Oh? There have been many, including changing 'a' to 'e' in some words,
:> : and leaving letters off some word endings. But then they didn't ask ME
:> : either....
:>
:> Since 1948?
:> Anyway,I typically prefer more "old-fashioned" variants,
:> such as "mediaeval","encyclopaedia","catalogue"...
:>
:
: Since I started school in 1950, yes. Somewhere along the line, there
: was a meeting of publishers, mainly newspapers, who had in mind
: standardizing many things that had been a bit haphazard in the past, and
: they also had in mind saving ink, so some things were changed, such as
: having a comma before the last item in a list,

I support the serial comma (the comma before the "and").

: and where to put punctuation in a sentence containing a quotation
: (they made the WRONG CHOICE THERE),

Never use the "new" way if it's wrong!!

: and even the size of the 'tail' on a comma.

Huh?...that's fonts,not spelling.

: At the same time, the agreed on many minor spelling changes that
: simplified the usage, and, again, saved ink.
: Sorry I don't recall just when that happened, but I think it was after 1961.

Ignore them.
German is more regulated and the efforts to enforce change
haven't been well received there either.

:> :> -=-=-
:> :> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
:> :> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

.